View Single Post
Old October 12, 2019, 09:16 AM   #4
Spats McGee
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,246
Off the top of my head, I see two answers to your questions: (1) The crux of the problem is that a "lower receiver," which is what the ATF has always said constitutes a "firearms receiver" all these years, does not meet the statutory definition of a "firearm receiver." That means that even though the ATF has "classified" lowers as "receivers," this court is saying that it did not have the power to do so because it had to ignore statutory definitions to do so.

(2) Part of the decision rests on the facts: (a) that the ATF has no clear system in place for classification and (b) it didn't follow the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in classifying lowers as "firearms." The BATFE is afraid that this case could set a precedent for challenging every determination letter it has ever sent out. That could really upset BATFE's apple cart.
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Page generated in 0.02799 seconds with 8 queries